Subject: CAP Editoral: Acronyms in Section 1

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:00:51 -0500

In showing CAP to someone they started to read Section 1 Introduction and 
were somewhat confused by the yet undefined acronyms it used:

This document specifies how a Calendar CUA interacts with a CS to manage 
calendar information. In particular, it specifies how to query, create, 
modify, and delete iCalendar components (e.g., events, to-dos, or daily 
journal entries). It further specifies how to search for available busy 
time information. Synchronization with CUAs is not covered. 

CAP is specified as a [BEEP] "profile". As such, many aspects of the 
protocol (e.g., authentication and privacy) are provided within [BEEP]. 
The protocol data units leverage the standard iCalendar format [iCAL] to 
convey calendar related information. 

CAP can also be used to store and fetch [iTIP] objects and when those 
objects are used in this memo, they mean exactly the same as defined in 
[iTIP]. When iCalendar objects are transfered between the CUA and a CS, 
some additional properties and parameters may be added and the CUA is 
responsible for correctly generating iCalendar objects to non CAP 
processes. 

The terms CS and CUA are not defined until Section 1.3 so could we please 
expand them to "Calendar Server" and Calendar User Agent until we define 
them later in the text?  Plus a "Calendar CUA" is a bit of a verbose 
redundancy...

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 11:23:52 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:

> In showing CAP to someone they started to read Section 1 Introduction 
> and were somewhat confused by the yet undefined acronyms it used: 

Is it reasonable to expect someone to be able to read the CAP spec if 
they haven't read 2445?

-- 
/============================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                     |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                   |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                  |
|============================================================|
|"God does not play games with His loyal servants." "Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*?" --_Good Omens_                      |
\============================================================/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:59:38 -0500

> Is it reasonable to expect someone to be able to read the CAP spec if 

Perhaps you can show me where in RFC 2445 we defined the term "Calendar 
User" and coined the acronym "CU".

We did use the term "calendar store" in 2 places but A) it was not 
capitalized and B) we did not coin the acronym "CS".

In the Abstract the first line has:

The Calendar Access Protocol (CAP) is an Internet protocol described in 
this memo that permits a Calendar User (CU) to utilize a Calendar User 
Agent (CUA) to access an [iCAL] based Calendar Store (CS). 

but since the Abstract is only 5 sentences long and it occurs before the 
large TOC it was simply overlooked when the folks skipped the TOC and went 
to Section 1.  This may be the normal layout but the tiny Abstract makes 
it easily overlooked, hence my 'Editorial' comment.  Im not asking for a 
full rewrite, just pointing something out...

Bruce